Comment on Dr. Geraty clarifies his “Challenge” to literal 6-day creationism by Michael Prewitt.
When my understanding of Adventism was built on a DOCTRINAL core, I worried and fretted about how I would resolve these different ways of knowing. Now that my understanding of Adventism is built around a FAITH core, I not only tolerate, but actually appreciate the significant aspects of uncertainty and mystery in both ways of knowing….
Far from turning me into an atheist, the willingness to hold in tension these two different “ways of knowing†has strengthened my faith and increased my understanding of the contributions of science as well as its limitations. I also appreciate both the contributions and limitations of the biblical record.
Christian truth is BUILT ON DOCTRINE. Make no mistake about it.
“Faith is the medium through which truth or error finds a lodging place in the mind. It is by the same act of mind that truth or error is received, but it makes a decided difference whether we believe the Word of God or the sayings of men.” Ellen White, 1SM 346.
A “faith core” not based on a “truth”/”doctrine” core is a recipe for heresy.
And why is it that so-called progressives have this love for “uncertainty” and “mystery” and “not knowing”? And they say things like, “I’ve finally learned to embrace the beauty of letting go of the need to have a rational faith,” and “I’ve learned to see faith and science as mutually exclusive domains, both of which I accept, and hold both in all their marvelous incompatibility.” (Those are not a direct quotes, but paraphrases of the poetic fluff you hear from “progressive” SDAs and others like them.) Surely, “A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways.” (I realize I’m using the verse in a different way than intended, yet it stills seems poignant.)
It’s also given me a strong distaste for pseudo-science, whether promoted by political parties or religious groups, driven by cherished ideology rather than by the pursuit of understanding truth/reality.
What about the pseudo-science promoted by science groups? And how you can say with such certainty that the “pseudo-science” of the groups you’ve described is not driven, perhaps naively or poorly at times, by their pursuit of truth/reality? In other words, some truth is plainly revealed in the Bible; some truth is not plainly revealed in nature; and you make it sound like those who give priority to the Bible are inferior to those who give priority to science in their objectively in pursuing truth/reality.
If we are to sustain a Christian/Adventist community in a scientific era, perhaps we should appreciate the wisdom of “Unity in essentials; tolerance on other matters.†As a religious community we can expect and require agreement of the issue of God as Creator, and at the same time be tolerant of diverse understandings of the details and mechanisms of creation.
What is “essential”? That “God is creator”? Woo, even Satan believes that. Creationism is absolutely essential to the whole Christian worldview. The is nothing important in Christianity that is not predicated on the events of Genesis 1-6 happening just as described.
By, “at the same time be tolerant of diverse understandings of the details and mechanisms of creation,” you mean all the different ways one can understand, “God spake, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast”, and “for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is”? I don’t think anyone here is asking for any more precision that this.
Michael Prewitt Also Commented
Dr. Geraty clarifies his “Challenge” to literal 6-day creationism
Wow, what a thread! The side issue of whether Geraty is a true sinner due his recent comments is a bit silly to me. Especially when, many “pages” later, both sides are still going at it.
It is obvious that the former LSU president takes a rather dim view of progressive truth. The obvious point that he fails to see is that the Seventh-day Adventist Church is founded on a particular view of Genesis 1, and those who join her ranks must stand on the platform of revealed truth that the founders built on. If he considers the issue still up for question, he should not be an Adventist. There is nothing optional about taking Genesis 1 literally in SDA theology. (Unless you’re a “California-style” Adventist who considers the church a social construct and not a theological one. A wink to Betsy’s comment above.)
Recent Comments by Michael Prewitt
Lorelei:
Personally, I believe that the point of the story is not HOW creation occurred, but WHY, and by WHOM.
Genesis 1 sure devotes a lot of words to the “how” … too many for me to consider it unimportant or irrelevant. And not only that, but also other verses in the Bible repeat (affirm) the same point. Psalm 33. Hebrews 11:3. Not only that, but also Ellen White affirms the specific nature of creation, and in much more detail than the Bible itself does.
While understanding that God is our Creator and Redeemer is certainly very important, the scope of the Bible’s teachings on Creation and other points is far more detailed than that. The Bible informs us of many supporting and correlated ideas, as well as many factors relating to morality and lifestyle. In particular, it accounts in detail God’s miracles through history, including Creation. It tells us many details about the future immortal life. It describes parallels betweens the future judgment and the Genesis Flood. The Bible is very much about detailed stories filled with specific facts. A view that the Bible, or portions of the Bible presented in literal form, are merely elaborate constructs that contain only elemental, vague ideas (e.g., we have a God, a Creator, a Redeemer) is a form of skepticism, and certainly a far cry from Seventh-day Adventism.
GC Votes to Revise SDA Fundamental #6 on Creation
So what was the final voted wording of FB #6?
A Historical Review of the Creation Debate Among SDAs
Wow, I didn’t realize I believe an “Adventist gap theory.” But I’ll stand by it. Since each day is carefully bracketed with an, “And God said…” and “And the evening and the morning were the ___ day”, and Day One doesn’t include the creation of water or the apparently submerged land, I don’t see any other way around it. But neither am I dogmatic about it.
I agree with others above that there’s nothing Adventist about any theistic evolution option. It reduces the church to a cultural relic, with no doctrinal significance. Although I feel hopeful that the church will stand down this threat, if it should fail to do so and eventually embrace evolution, I will be forced to withdraw my membership. Adventism and Darwinism cannot mix; they are like iron and clay. For that matter, Christianity and Darwinism cannot mix. It is heresy in the worst way. Choose the Bible, or choose Origin of Species … but you can’t have both.
